A Radical Birth
Is there a greater mystery or a more bizarre story than the birth of Christ?The greatest screen play could not weaved together a more complicated and dramatic plot. Many of us have heard it so many times that we do fail to recognize the turns-of-events, and the Divine intervention the nativity represents. This season I stand in awe over it took for God to become man. I stand in awe at the nature of Jesus' incarnation. Christians believe Jesus was fully God and fully man with no conflation or confusion of natures. He was neither schizophrenic, suffering from multiple personalities, nor neurotic, confused and anxious. He was one Person with two natures. He was God's Son. Although being the Second person of the Divine God head for all eternity(Psalm2:12; Isaiah 48:16 et.al), he voluntarily subordinated himself to the Father who promised him a kingdom (Mark 2:1 - 12;John 1: 1 -5; 8:58; 10:30; Colossi ans 2:1-18 et.al). Christ voluntarily assumed the role of God's Son from eternity. He was fully God but functioned in subordination to the Father who promised him a kingdom. When Jesus Christ came into possession of human flesh He was all ready the eternal Son. He was unique, unlike any other Person before since or who will exist. He was the eternal God who now became flesh. That is what Christmas is about.
Although he was Son of God prior to his incarnation he did not possess human flesh. He became a man at his incarnation, his birth. He condescended himself taking on human likeness. He humbled himself and took on human nature (Phil 2:5-11). He did this through being born of the Virgin Mary. This leads to an obvious questions about her: how could Jesus have been born of human parentage and not inherited a sin nature?. The Roman Catholic church has answered this question through a doctrine they call the immaculate conception. The view is that Mary's parents were of such probity that they became sinless; she was conceived by parents who were immaculate. She was born sinless and continued to live a sinless life. Therefore, the genetic material Jesus obtained from her was sinless.
There are several problems with this view: first, is Mary's sinless state elevates her to iconic if not divine status puts her in a position of being an object of worship, an idol; second in the Magnificat, she declares her Child to be her savior (Luke 1:47) implying she was a sinner; thirdly, not only does the scripture make clear that no human being is righteous (Romans 3: 9- 18), but that all have sinned including Mary. Fourth, Jesus knowing she understood the unique nature of his birth often spoke of her in diminutive terms precisely to define her humbly, distinguishing himself from her:
[48] And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.” [49] And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?” [50] And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them. (Luke 2:48-50 ESV, cf. Mt 12:46-50)
[4] And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” (John 2:4 ESV)
[26] When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” [27] Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26-27 ESV)
Jesus loved his mother, but clearly sought to make clear to her understand that he was morally and spiritually her superior. He never elevated her to iconic status, nor encouraged her veneration (nor did any of the apostles or New Testament writers). When Jesus appeared to her after his resurrection she fell before Him, grab his feet in an act of submission and worship (Matthew 28:1-10), which he accepted. Even had she she been impeccable she would still be guilty of sin. God's condemnation of the race was federalistic; in other words, when Adam was cast out of the presence of God divine judgment fell to all his progeny (Romans 5: 12 -21). So even if it were possible for Mary's character to have been impeccable she still would have had been condemned as a member of Adam's race. So the Catholic view that Mary was morally impeccable appears untenable with Scripture.
The Protestant view is that the virgin birth was the product of God's intervening and enabling Mary to bear the child. How did a Divine Human child grow in the womb of a sinful woman? One of the amazing aspects of the incarnation is that the infinite God became a single-cell human embryo and went through normal genetic and human development (Luke 2:52). If we Protestants believe that Mary had a sin nature, then how could he have inherited any genetic material from her? We agree he could not have been the product of some dalliance, but how could he have been free of a sin nature if he had inherited any of her nature? Yet Jesus was fully human, born from a single cell.
As we know a human embryo contains 46 chromosomes ("The Human Body - How Many Chromosomes Are There In A Human Body Cell?." Science Fact Finder. Ed. Phillis Engelbert. UXL-Gale, 1998. eNotes.com. 2006. 24 Jul, 2010cited July 24, 2010), each parent contributing 23.
So did Mary contribute 23 chromosomes to Jesus human body? If so were 23 chromosomes corrupted and the other 23 holy? Our Catholic friends would answer, no they were not, because Mary, herself ,was conceived with out sin. This does not appear to be consistent with what scripture teaches about her. Protestants have traditionally asserted that God miraculously superintended so Mary's chromosomes were impeccable. If God changed the genetic make up of Mary's chromosomes, then were they hers, at all? When he created Eve from the rib of Adam; he apparently used all of his DNA except his Y chromosome, giving her the double X chromosomal pair. This did not mean she was 42 parts Adam and one part Eve. This one small adjustment made her a radically different person from her husband, and gave trillions of possible differences for their progeny. So if God manipulated Mary's DNA, was it hers at all? On the other hand, if half of Jesus' flesh came from Mary and half from God, then how he could be fully either human or divine? Would he then, not be half and half? Suppose he received 46 from Mary and only the Y male chromosome and other new DNA markers had been uniquely created, then he would have born no relationship to Mary at all. In either event, He would be unique from every human being on earth? He would have been part human and part divine, which we have all ready asserted is contrary to what scripture teaches and Christian's believe? For me this raises a question: was Mary a surrogate mother? Did she provide a nurturing womb for a Savior who condescended to become an embryo of 46 chromosomes each uniquely and specially generated by God? Was Mary a vessel for the Christ's child's birth; His mother by nurture, but not by nature?
Jesus was fully divine before his birthday! The communication of a Divine nature to the Christ child was immaterial. The Father has never been seen or touched with human hands. His is the creator of all dimensionality and matter. He is immaterial. Human beings are corporeal in nature. This means the Divine Nature was transmitted to the human child mysteriously. There were no DNA molecules that contained Divine portion of Jesus' nature. So Jesus corporeal matter had to be either communicated to him through an immaculate Mary or by a miraculous generation. Regardless of Mary"s part in the birth it is obvious the birth of Jesus Christ was a unique and a radical event. It was a birth like none other before, since, or unlike any that will ever be.
One term that is often used to describe Christ's birth is translated anachronistically in the King James Version, "begotten." The modern translations will use the term "one and only," or sometimes "unique." In Greek, the language of the New Testament, the Word is "monogenes," a compound of two Greek words "mono," usually meaning " single," "one of a kind, and "genes," which can mean "generate. " The word usually refers to an only child or unique birth. In the case of Christ it refers to one who was unique (Luke 8:42, 9:38, 11:7; Hebrews 11:17) But how does the scripture use this term in relation to the incarnation of Jesus Christ? The word expresses the fact that Jesus' incarnation, his generation into a human body was unlike any other and that it uniquely qualified for the work of redemption:
[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14 ESV) .
He was the Word (God) and He was the flesh (human body) full of grace and truth. He was the eternal Son of God, now in a uniquely created fully human body.
[18] No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (John 1:18 ESV).
He is referred to as "the only God." Jesus is unique in that he reveals God to man, because He is the eternal God himself. When you see Christ, you have seen God. He is fully and completely God.
Was Jesus unique birth with 46 unique human chromosomes means his human body was specially generated? A miraculous creation with no human parentage happened once before. One other time God created a fully human man from nothing putting together 46 individual chromosomes. That man was Adam. Human beings have come into the flesh, through pro-creation and creation. Adam was created and Jesus assumed human flesh which was miraculously generated. Adam was created "from the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7). God took the proteins, enzymes and acids he had created, combined them into DNA nuclei, created multiple copies creating a fully human man. The scripture often refers to Jesus as the Second Adam, meaning his humanity corresponds to Adam's somehow. Could that reference imply a similarity in the generation of both men? In what ways are Adam and Jesus similar, and different, and what difference does it make?
The New Testament makes reference to the first Adam 9 times. The first reference is in Luke 3:38 which traces Jesus' lineage through Mary back to Adam, identifying him as a descendant of Adam, and a member of the human race. (We will come back to how he could have been referred to as a descendant of Adam were he uniquely created later). First Timothy 2:13 & 14 refers to Adam regarding created male and female roles, this verse has no bearing on our current discussion. The Last is Jude 14 and is a reference to the genealogy of Enoch. Neither does it have relevance to this discussion. The remaining references are significant to our discussion:
[14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:14 ESV).This passage makes reference to men and women who lived before the Law was given, and says they were condemned to death, because they were descendants of Adam. His sin was imputed to them. So even though, people may have been unaware that specific acts were transgressions against God's holiness they stood condemned, because all Adam's descendants were condemned with him. When Adam sinned death came to human race. Paul says God did it this way because Adam was " a type of one to come" Adam prefigured a Second Adam whose action would also apply to all men federally. In other words as Adam sin was applied to all Men, a Second Adam, a man, with a uniquely generated body would come who had no sin. His sinlessness would be applied to his descendants. So just as through One Adam death became the possession of all who were his descendants, through the Second Adam life was granted to his (Romans 5: 15 -17).
A comparison between first and Second Adams is drawn in 1 Corinthian 15:22-45 where Adam is referred to 3 times:
[22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. [23] But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:22-23 ESV)
This passage explains how Christ's gift of eternal life can be applied to men. It affirms that Adam's death and Christ's gift of life are both applied to all men. But how is that possible if Adam and Christ both share DNA with the human race. Adam is different from all other human beings save 2, his wife, Eve and Jesus. Eve's body was pro-created from Adam without sin. Jesus was born of Mary without Sin. Adam inherited no sin nature, nor was sin imputed to him. He chose sin, and in that choice included his progeny, representatively. Jesus, too, was born without sin and was therefore like Adam, fully human. His body, soul and spirit were without sin. He did not die because of His sin, He had none, when He was given the choice (in the temptation, and the garden) He did not sin. The bondage of sin, either through genetics or imputation, was forever broken and the authority of Satan was destroyed at that moment (Matthew 4: 1-11; 28;18; Luke 4:1 - 13; 10:17-20). In the possession of uniquely created flesh Christ was like Adam, but he was unlike him in his relationship to sin, and therefore was unlike any of his Adam's descendants.
Christ possesses of 46 chromosomes as does the rest of the human race, and Christ died along with all other human. Death came to the race by Adam's sin, he deserved it, and we do too. Christ was similar to Adam only in the uniqueness of his body. What he shares with Adam's descendant is death. Adam was a living human being, with a long progeny, but due to his failure all of his descendant die. The life he gives will ultimately fails. Jesus body is uncorrupted (1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Like Adam his body was generated in perfection, like Adam in death He represented his progeny, so that He could be the perfect sacrifice for our sin. His death was undeserved; he was able to take the death we deserve-- penalty transferred. The theological term is "substitutionary atonement." He was able to satisfy God condemnation of sin on our behalf because he was Fully God and Fully human and without sin. So not only is there a comparison between the 2 Adams. There are important differences between them:
[45] Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Corinthians 15:45 ESV cf. Romans 4:25; 8:3 &4; Galatians 3:13 & 14).The Second Adam -- Jesus Christ -- uniquely enabled to offer Himself as a sacrifice for others. He was like Adam; he was fully man. He was different from Adam in that he did not inherit death from Adam. His lineage was different. He did not deserve death. His death was substitutionary. He died to do what we could not do for ourselves.
"[21] For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV). This passage speaks of his being made as a man that God made him similar to Adam but still unique having no sin. [30] And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, (1 Corinthians 1:30 ESV)"So then it is clear, Jesus was Fully man, like Adam possessing a unique body, but a human nature that was impeccable.
So how do we compare and contrast the First and Second Adams. First both had uniquely generated human bodies. Adam was created by God with 46 DNA helixes. Could Jesus have possessed human DNA? How could he have inherited human material from a mother, and not carried her nature (which even if morally pure, would be corrupt federally.) For Jesus to have been the Second uncorrupted Adam did his flesh have to be radically unique? A unique body neither diminishes his deity nor discredits his humanity. Adam as a uniquely created man, without parents was fully human. Christ did not have to inherit human material to be fully man.
Neither does this view diminished his Deity. Adam being fully human was not God. Jesus did not have to become God and He did not need 23 perfect chromosomes to make him man. He merely took spiritual possession of a body prepared for Him in the form of a single cell human embryo. Adam prefigured a second man. They both pass on their life status imputation-ally. As all who shared in Adam's DNA died with him. All who share in Christ's death and resurrected live through faith with Him. Both Men died to because of sin's penalty.Both were cast out of the presence of God, one deservedly (Genesis 3:24), the other by substitution (Mathew 15:34) . Adam was created as a fully grown man. Jesus experienced every aspect of human physical development. Whereas Adam died because of his own sin. Christ died for your sin and mine. Whereas Adam's death corrupted the race, Jesus' brought about righteousness. Whereas the human nature was transmitted by procreation. Jesus' Spirit transforms lives through regeneration (John 1:12 &13Roman 4:13 -15; 5:26 and 17). All of this raises a question?
In addition to "one and only" and the reference to the Second Adam. One other term that I believe has reference to Jesus birth: Jesus is referred to as the "first born from the dead."
[5] and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood (Revelation 1:5 ESV).
I have heard various explanations of this term. Some have said, he was first man to be resurrected. But he was not. The Old Testament prophets Elijah and Elisha raised people from the dead. After Jesus' death their was a group of Old Testament saints who arose.
"[52] The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, [53] and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. (Matthew 27:52-53 ESV)"
Our Lord himself raised several people, including Lazarus (john11). So Jesus was not the first to be resurrected. The phrase "first born" does not necessarily imply birth order as much as legal prominence. The birthright could be passed to One who was not first in line (cf. Jacob and Esau). The phrase "first born" means legal preeminence or importance. So the idea of the first born is that Jesus was the first human to have preeminence over death, to conquer sin. Because of that he reversed the curse of the fall and took preeminence over earth.
But what does all this say about Mary? One of the questions surrounding Mary is that if she was impeccable, then married Joseph, a sinful man, would their relationship have corrupted her? In other words, how could a sinless virgin have children with a corrupt human? Were her children only half corrupted? Our catholic friends deny she had other children, when the scripture is clear Jesus had siblings:
[46] While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. [48] But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” [49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! [50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50 ESV).
His own brother became a leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:2, 17; Acts15:13; 21:18; Galatians 1:16; 2:9-12; Jude 1). He went own to be an apostolic leader an author of a New Testament text:
[1:1] James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion: Greetings. James 1:1 ESV)Did her children, his siblings, share DNA with Jesus? Was Mary's DNA corrupted by Joseph's, or were these people superior to others as they were half impeccable. The existence of Jesus' brothers and sisters make it exceedingly difficult to explain Mary' holiness. Yet the scripture calls her Blessed. She is blessed as she was chosen to be a vessel of redemption and the preeminent example of obedience. If her nature was corrupted, as Protestants believe, scripture teaches it was; Jesus was her Savior, which she asserted in the Magnificat:
And Mary said,
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, (Luke 1:46-47 ESV)
If He was her Savior, what did she contribute to his birth? Did he inherit anything from Mary? If he did not inherit anything from Mary, does that diminish his humanity.
The genealogies of Jesus give us some interesting insight into the nature of his birth. While strangely ignoring Mary the the genealogies of Jesus affirm his humanity and divinity in unexpected ways.
In Luke 3: 23- 32, which most scholars believe is Mary genealogy makes no mention of her. Some say this is because of the Jewish tendency to ignore women in genealogical records, and the reference to him as being the supposed son of Joseph, implies that he is not a natural Son of Joseph, thy implying this is the genealogy of Mary. This view seem inconsistent with Luke,s birth account which, emphasizes Mary, Elizabeth, the prophetess Anna. The gospel is the most feminine of the Synoptics, furthermore, Luke's gospel is the first part of a two part work directed to a Hellenistic judge (Acts 1:1). It is directed to a Gentile audience and unlikely to have left a reference to Mary out of the genealogy due to Jewish sensibilities or traditions. Luke seems to leave her out intentionally, What was Luke's reason for excluding His central character, the mother, whom he had built the whole story birth account around? Could it emphasize that her womb was a passive recipient of God's work in response to her obedience? Does this imply that Jesus was not a physical descendant of either Mary or Joseph?
Yet the genealogy in Matthew Chapter One strangely includes Mary (Matthew 1:17). This birth account emphasize Joseph, Jesus' earthly father. It list mostly paternal ancestors. Yet it describes Joseph as father of Jesus by relationship to his marriage to Mary (1:16). It is also incomplete. It only traces the line back to Abraham. It is put together in 3 groups of 14 generations, which may imply Trinitarian perfection, but undoubtedly connects Jesus birth to the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant, emphasizing his role as the Jewish Messiah. This is a thoroughly Jewish genealogy. One would expect the book that is least feminine of the Synoptics. the one written to a Jewish audience and most likely to be sensitive to a Jewish attitude towards women would leave women out of the record. Yet this genealogy upsets our expectations because it list women as being important in Jesus birth (1:3 Jesus is descended of Tamar, an incestuous daughter-in-law; Rahab, a temple prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess, a Gentile and an enemy of the Jews 1:5, Bathsheba an adulteress 1:6; and lastly Mary chosen by grace 1:16. ). The most Jewish birth account intentionally breaks with Jewish tradition in the listing of Jesus' ancestry.
Each of the women stand out in the account as unqualified mothers of the Messiah. The genealogy is structured to show Christ's connection to the men as legal heirs of the Davidic kingdom, qualifying him to the covenant and to the Jewish Nation. The women though seem to emphasize that Christ's connection to failed humanity. That each of these women were uniquely undeserving of their place, but chosen by the grace of God, emphasizes the radical uniqueness of Jesus' birth. This was no ordinary child. The genealogy screams a message that we are connected to Christ by grace rather than law. Since it makes clear that Jesus relationship to Joseph is by adoption, and his relationship to the women is by grace, does that imply physical progeny to David is unnecessary for one to enter the covenant? Could Mary have been a surrogate mother, Joseph a step-father, and Jesus been a descendant of David? There seems to be nothing preventing that in either genealogy, or in terms describing his birth.
So when one thinks of a fully human fully Divine Savior, is there any reason to expect he received human material from any human being? The term "only" defines the radical uniqueness of his flesh. The reference to him as a Second Adam, seems to emphasize their similar special creation and federal representation of the human race. The term first born from the dead, implies that because of his special human life, he is the penultimate Man. The fact that the most feminine of the birth accounts leaves Mary out out of genealogy was no accidental omission. The author for some reason wanted to distinguish Jesus from Mary and her physical ancestors. The list in Matthew, while connecting him to the Davidic covenant through his stepfather Joseph, connects him with all human beings through 5 unlikely, unqualified, sinful women, screaming out that his human heritage is one of grace, rather than genetics.
Did Jesus need to inherit any thing physical from Mary other than maternal nurture? She was uniquely blessed with the most important ministerial call in history to give life to the hope of us all. God chose Mary, a special obedient woman of faith to carry and nurture the Holy Embryo and raise Him as a child, and adolescent to be a healthy, happy man, while contributing nothing of her own flesh to his. Can someone explain to me why there is nothing in the incarnation or the terms surrounding event that would require Jesus to have received genetic material from Mary. I therefore ask again, "was Mary a surrogate mother?"
Although he was Son of God prior to his incarnation he did not possess human flesh. He became a man at his incarnation, his birth. He condescended himself taking on human likeness. He humbled himself and took on human nature (Phil 2:5-11). He did this through being born of the Virgin Mary. This leads to an obvious questions about her: how could Jesus have been born of human parentage and not inherited a sin nature?. The Roman Catholic church has answered this question through a doctrine they call the immaculate conception. The view is that Mary's parents were of such probity that they became sinless; she was conceived by parents who were immaculate. She was born sinless and continued to live a sinless life. Therefore, the genetic material Jesus obtained from her was sinless.
There are several problems with this view: first, is Mary's sinless state elevates her to iconic if not divine status puts her in a position of being an object of worship, an idol; second in the Magnificat, she declares her Child to be her savior (Luke 1:47) implying she was a sinner; thirdly, not only does the scripture make clear that no human being is righteous (Romans 3: 9- 18), but that all have sinned including Mary. Fourth, Jesus knowing she understood the unique nature of his birth often spoke of her in diminutive terms precisely to define her humbly, distinguishing himself from her:
[48] And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.” [49] And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?” [50] And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them. (Luke 2:48-50 ESV, cf. Mt 12:46-50)
[4] And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” (John 2:4 ESV)
[26] When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” [27] Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26-27 ESV)
Jesus loved his mother, but clearly sought to make clear to her understand that he was morally and spiritually her superior. He never elevated her to iconic status, nor encouraged her veneration (nor did any of the apostles or New Testament writers). When Jesus appeared to her after his resurrection she fell before Him, grab his feet in an act of submission and worship (Matthew 28:1-10), which he accepted. Even had she she been impeccable she would still be guilty of sin. God's condemnation of the race was federalistic; in other words, when Adam was cast out of the presence of God divine judgment fell to all his progeny (Romans 5: 12 -21). So even if it were possible for Mary's character to have been impeccable she still would have had been condemned as a member of Adam's race. So the Catholic view that Mary was morally impeccable appears untenable with Scripture.
The Protestant view is that the virgin birth was the product of God's intervening and enabling Mary to bear the child. How did a Divine Human child grow in the womb of a sinful woman? One of the amazing aspects of the incarnation is that the infinite God became a single-cell human embryo and went through normal genetic and human development (Luke 2:52). If we Protestants believe that Mary had a sin nature, then how could he have inherited any genetic material from her? We agree he could not have been the product of some dalliance, but how could he have been free of a sin nature if he had inherited any of her nature? Yet Jesus was fully human, born from a single cell.
As we know a human embryo contains 46 chromosomes ("The Human Body - How Many Chromosomes Are There In A Human Body Cell?." Science Fact Finder. Ed. Phillis Engelbert. UXL-Gale, 1998. eNotes.com. 2006. 24 Jul, 2010
So did Mary contribute 23 chromosomes to Jesus human body? If so were 23 chromosomes corrupted and the other 23 holy? Our Catholic friends would answer, no they were not, because Mary, herself ,was conceived with out sin. This does not appear to be consistent with what scripture teaches about her. Protestants have traditionally asserted that God miraculously superintended so Mary's chromosomes were impeccable. If God changed the genetic make up of Mary's chromosomes, then were they hers, at all? When he created Eve from the rib of Adam; he apparently used all of his DNA except his Y chromosome, giving her the double X chromosomal pair. This did not mean she was 42 parts Adam and one part Eve. This one small adjustment made her a radically different person from her husband, and gave trillions of possible differences for their progeny. So if God manipulated Mary's DNA, was it hers at all? On the other hand, if half of Jesus' flesh came from Mary and half from God, then how he could be fully either human or divine? Would he then, not be half and half? Suppose he received 46 from Mary and only the Y male chromosome and other new DNA markers had been uniquely created, then he would have born no relationship to Mary at all. In either event, He would be unique from every human being on earth? He would have been part human and part divine, which we have all ready asserted is contrary to what scripture teaches and Christian's believe? For me this raises a question: was Mary a surrogate mother? Did she provide a nurturing womb for a Savior who condescended to become an embryo of 46 chromosomes each uniquely and specially generated by God? Was Mary a vessel for the Christ's child's birth; His mother by nurture, but not by nature?
Jesus was fully divine before his birthday! The communication of a Divine nature to the Christ child was immaterial. The Father has never been seen or touched with human hands. His is the creator of all dimensionality and matter. He is immaterial. Human beings are corporeal in nature. This means the Divine Nature was transmitted to the human child mysteriously. There were no DNA molecules that contained Divine portion of Jesus' nature. So Jesus corporeal matter had to be either communicated to him through an immaculate Mary or by a miraculous generation. Regardless of Mary"s part in the birth it is obvious the birth of Jesus Christ was a unique and a radical event. It was a birth like none other before, since, or unlike any that will ever be.
One term that is often used to describe Christ's birth is translated anachronistically in the King James Version, "begotten." The modern translations will use the term "one and only," or sometimes "unique." In Greek, the language of the New Testament, the Word is "monogenes," a compound of two Greek words "mono," usually meaning " single," "one of a kind, and "genes," which can mean "generate.
[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14 ESV) .
He was the Word (God) and He was the flesh (human body) full of grace and truth. He was the eternal Son of God, now in a uniquely created fully human body.
[18] No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (John 1:18 ESV).
He is referred to as "the only God." Jesus is unique in that he reveals God to man, because He is the eternal God himself. When you see Christ, you have seen God. He is fully and completely God.
Was Jesus unique birth with 46 unique human chromosomes means his human body was specially generated? A miraculous creation with no human parentage happened once before. One other time God created a fully human man from nothing putting together 46 individual chromosomes. That man was Adam. Human beings have come into the flesh, through pro-creation and creation. Adam was created and Jesus assumed human flesh which was miraculously generated. Adam was created "from the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7). God took the proteins, enzymes and acids he had created, combined them into DNA nuclei, created multiple copies creating a fully human man. The scripture often refers to Jesus as the Second Adam, meaning his humanity corresponds to Adam's somehow. Could that reference imply a similarity in the generation of both men? In what ways are Adam and Jesus similar, and different, and what difference does it make?
The New Testament makes reference to the first Adam 9 times. The first reference is in Luke 3:38 which traces Jesus' lineage through Mary back to Adam, identifying him as a descendant of Adam, and a member of the human race. (We will come back to how he could have been referred to as a descendant of Adam were he uniquely created later). First Timothy 2:13 & 14 refers to Adam regarding created male and female roles, this verse has no bearing on our current discussion. The Last is Jude 14 and is a reference to the genealogy of Enoch. Neither does it have relevance to this discussion. The remaining references are significant to our discussion:
[14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:14 ESV).This passage makes reference to men and women who lived before the Law was given, and says they were condemned to death, because they were descendants of Adam. His sin was imputed to them. So even though, people may have been unaware that specific acts were transgressions against God's holiness they stood condemned, because all Adam's descendants were condemned with him. When Adam sinned death came to human race. Paul says God did it this way because Adam was " a type of one to come" Adam prefigured a Second Adam whose action would also apply to all men federally. In other words as Adam sin was applied to all Men, a Second Adam, a man, with a uniquely generated body would come who had no sin. His sinlessness would be applied to his descendants. So just as through One Adam death became the possession of all who were his descendants, through the Second Adam life was granted to his (Romans 5: 15 -17).
A comparison between first and Second Adams is drawn in 1 Corinthian 15:22-45 where Adam is referred to 3 times:
[22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. [23] But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:22-23 ESV)
This passage explains how Christ's gift of eternal life can be applied to men. It affirms that Adam's death and Christ's gift of life are both applied to all men. But how is that possible if Adam and Christ both share DNA with the human race. Adam is different from all other human beings save 2, his wife, Eve and Jesus. Eve's body was pro-created from Adam without sin. Jesus was born of Mary without Sin. Adam inherited no sin nature, nor was sin imputed to him. He chose sin, and in that choice included his progeny, representatively. Jesus, too, was born without sin and was therefore like Adam, fully human. His body, soul and spirit were without sin. He did not die because of His sin, He had none, when He was given the choice (in the temptation, and the garden) He did not sin. The bondage of sin, either through genetics or imputation, was forever broken and the authority of Satan was destroyed at that moment (Matthew 4: 1-11; 28;18; Luke 4:1 - 13; 10:17-20). In the possession of uniquely created flesh Christ was like Adam, but he was unlike him in his relationship to sin, and therefore was unlike any of his Adam's descendants.
Christ possesses of 46 chromosomes as does the rest of the human race, and Christ died along with all other human. Death came to the race by Adam's sin, he deserved it, and we do too. Christ was similar to Adam only in the uniqueness of his body. What he shares with Adam's descendant is death.
[45] Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Corinthians 15:45 ESV cf. Romans 4:25; 8:3 &4; Galatians 3:13 & 14).The Second Adam -- Jesus Christ -- uniquely enabled to offer Himself as a sacrifice for others. He was like Adam; he was fully man. He was different from Adam in that he did not inherit death from Adam. His lineage was different. He did not deserve death. His death was substitutionary. He died to do what we could not do for ourselves.
"[21] For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV). This passage speaks of his being made as a man that God made him similar to Adam but still unique having no sin. [30] And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, (1 Corinthians 1:30 ESV)"So then it is clear, Jesus was Fully man, like Adam possessing a unique body, but a human nature that was impeccable.
So how do we compare and contrast the First and Second Adams. First both had uniquely generated human bodies. Adam was created by God with 46 DNA helixes. Could Jesus have possessed human DNA? How could he have inherited human material from a mother, and not carried her nature (which even if morally pure, would be corrupt federally.) For Jesus to have been the Second uncorrupted Adam did his flesh have to be radically unique? A unique body neither diminishes his deity nor discredits his humanity. Adam as a uniquely created man, without parents was fully human. Christ did not have to inherit human material to be fully man.
Neither does this view diminished his Deity. Adam being fully human was not God. Jesus did not have to become God and He did not need 23 perfect chromosomes to make him man. He merely took spiritual possession of a body prepared for Him in the form of a single cell human embryo. Adam prefigured a second man. They both pass on their life status imputation-ally. As all who shared in Adam's DNA died with him. All who share in Christ's death and resurrected live through faith with Him. Both Men died to because of sin's penalty.
In addition to "one and only" and the reference to the Second Adam. One other term that I believe has reference to Jesus birth: Jesus is referred to as the "first born from the dead."
[5] and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood (Revelation 1:5 ESV).
I have heard various explanations of this term. Some have said, he was first man to be resurrected. But he was not. The Old Testament prophets Elijah and Elisha raised people from the dead. After Jesus' death their was a group of Old Testament saints who arose.
"[52] The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, [53] and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. (Matthew 27:52-53 ESV)"
Our Lord himself raised several people, including Lazarus (john11). So Jesus was not the first to be resurrected. The phrase "first born" does not necessarily imply birth order as much as legal prominence. The birthright could be passed to One who was not first in line (cf. Jacob and Esau). The phrase "first born" means legal preeminence or importance. So the idea of the first born is that Jesus was the first human to have preeminence over death, to conquer sin. Because of that he reversed the curse of the fall and took preeminence over earth.
But what does all this say about Mary? One of the questions surrounding Mary is that if she was impeccable, then married Joseph, a sinful man, would their relationship have corrupted her? In other words, how could a sinless virgin have children with a corrupt human? Were her children only half corrupted? Our catholic friends deny she had other children, when the scripture is clear Jesus had siblings:
[46] While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. [48] But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” [49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! [50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50 ESV).
His own brother became a leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:2, 17; Acts15:13; 21:18; Galatians 1:16; 2:9-12; Jude 1). He went own to be an apostolic leader an author of a New Testament text:
[1:1] James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion: Greetings. James 1:1 ESV)Did her children, his siblings, share DNA with Jesus? Was Mary's DNA corrupted by Joseph's, or were these people superior to others as they were half impeccable. The existence of Jesus' brothers and sisters make it exceedingly difficult to explain Mary' holiness. Yet the scripture calls her Blessed. She is blessed as she was chosen to be a vessel of redemption and the preeminent example of obedience. If her nature was corrupted, as Protestants believe, scripture teaches it was; Jesus was her Savior, which she asserted in the Magnificat:
In Luke 3: 23- 32, which most scholars believe is Mary genealogy makes no mention of her. Some say this is because of the Jewish tendency to ignore women in genealogical records, and the reference to him as being the supposed son of Joseph, implies that he is not a natural Son of Joseph, thy implying this is the genealogy of Mary. This view seem inconsistent with Luke,s birth account which, emphasizes Mary, Elizabeth, the prophetess Anna. The gospel is the most feminine of the Synoptics, furthermore, Luke's gospel is the first part of a two part work directed to a Hellenistic judge (Acts 1:1). It is directed to a Gentile audience and unlikely to have left a reference to Mary out of the genealogy due to Jewish sensibilities or traditions. Luke seems to leave her out intentionally, What was Luke's reason for excluding His central character, the mother, whom he had built the whole story birth account around? Could it emphasize that her womb was a passive recipient of God's work in response to her obedience? Does this imply that Jesus was not a physical descendant of either Mary or Joseph?
Yet the genealogy in Matthew Chapter One strangely includes Mary (Matthew 1:17). This birth account emphasize Joseph, Jesus' earthly father. It list mostly paternal ancestors. Yet it describes Joseph as father of Jesus by relationship to his marriage to Mary (1:16). It is also incomplete. It only traces the line back to Abraham. It is put together in 3 groups of 14 generations, which may imply Trinitarian perfection, but undoubtedly connects Jesus birth to the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant, emphasizing his role as the Jewish Messiah. This is a thoroughly Jewish genealogy. One would expect the book that is least feminine of the Synoptics. the one written to a Jewish audience and most likely to be sensitive to a Jewish attitude towards women would leave women out of the record. Yet this genealogy upsets our expectations because it list women as being important in Jesus birth (1:3 Jesus is descended of Tamar, an incestuous daughter-in-law; Rahab, a temple prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess, a Gentile and an enemy of the Jews 1:5, Bathsheba an adulteress 1:6; and lastly Mary chosen by grace 1:16. ). The most Jewish birth account intentionally breaks with Jewish tradition in the listing of Jesus' ancestry.
Each of the women stand out in the account as unqualified mothers of the Messiah. The genealogy is structured to show Christ's connection to the men as legal heirs of the Davidic kingdom, qualifying him to the covenant and to the Jewish Nation. The women though seem to emphasize that Christ's connection to failed humanity. That each of these women were uniquely undeserving of their place, but chosen by the grace of God, emphasizes the radical uniqueness of Jesus' birth. This was no ordinary child. The genealogy screams a message that we are connected to Christ by grace rather than law. Since it makes clear that Jesus relationship to Joseph is by adoption, and his relationship to the women is by grace, does that imply physical progeny to David is unnecessary for one to enter the covenant? Could Mary have been a surrogate mother, Joseph a step-father, and Jesus been a descendant of David? There seems to be nothing preventing that in either genealogy, or in terms describing his birth.
So when one thinks of a fully human fully Divine Savior, is there any reason to expect he received human material from any human being? The term "only" defines the radical uniqueness of his flesh. The reference to him as a Second Adam, seems to emphasize their similar special creation and federal representation of the human race. The term first born from the dead, implies that because of his special human life, he is the penultimate Man. The fact that the most feminine of the birth accounts leaves Mary out out of genealogy was no accidental omission. The author for some reason wanted to distinguish Jesus from Mary and her physical ancestors. The list in Matthew, while connecting him to the Davidic covenant through his stepfather Joseph, connects him with all human beings through 5 unlikely, unqualified, sinful women, screaming out that his human heritage is one of grace, rather than genetics.
Comments
Post a Comment